Another NK nuke test - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tully Mars · 05-25-2009, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Reporting from Seoul -- As the international community condemned North Korea's nuclear test and missile launch today, analysts said the tests signaled Pyongyang's growing disillusionment over the U.S. refusal to conduct bilateral talks.

North Korea's ailing leader Kim Jong Il, determined to seek more drastic measures to bring the Obama Administration to the bargaining table, could even carry out more nuclear tests as a way to bully the U.S. and its allies, experts said today.

A Russian news agency reported that an official in North Korea's embassy in Moscow has claimed that new tests would take place "if the United States and its allies continue the policy of intimidation against North Korea," Tass reported.

Figuratively speaking, North Korea's dual actions Monday were aimed directly at Washington, which has directed its attentions away from Pyongyang as officials direct wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Last year, a lot of people from Seoul and Washington visited Pyongyang telling Kim and his people that once Obama was in the White House, the U.S. was going to be a totally different entity to deal with," said Lee Dong-bok, a senior associate in Seoul for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

"But it's not working out that way. That's the reason North Korea is acting in such an erratic manner. "

Monday's tests followed a rocket launch in April that Pyongyang claimed placed a communications satellite into orbit launch but many contended was a disguised missile launch.

The satellite did not reach outer space, analysts say, but the U.S., South Korea and Japan nonetheless reacted with anger, seeking new sanctions against North Korea from the U.N. security council.

Nations worldwide reacted with concern at Pyongyang's newest underground nuclear test – its first since 2006 – which was followed just hours later by the test of a short-range missile.

In a statement, President Barack Obama called the developments "a grave concern for all nations."

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak voiced disappointment with Pyongyang as he met with top security officials in a bunker below the Blue House, the nation's seat of power.

Japan vowed to seek a stern response from the U.N. security council as it met today to discuss North Korea.

And Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said North Korean deserves "nothing other than our absolute condemnation, and that condemnation should be echoed around our region and the globe," he told parliament, according to wires reports.

Analysts speculated that Kim's timing on the launch was two-fold: he wanted to impress the North Korean military and help set the stage for his successor.

"Since the appearance of health issues with Kim Jong-Il last year, the North Korean military became more influential," said Cheong Seong-chang, director of Inter-Korean Relations Studies Program at Sejong Institute near Seoul.

"Therefore, I have a sense that the military may have concluded that possession of nuclear weapons is very important."

Since he reportedly suffered a debilitating stroke last year, Kim has sought to arrange a smooth handover of power to one of three sons. He would like to start talks with Washington before that power shift takes place, experts say.

"Kim now feels that because of his declining health, he feels he must be on a faster timetable," said Moon Hong-sik, a research fellow at the Institute for National Security Strategy in Seoul.

"The U.S. has ignored him. He feels the pressure and he's upping the odds with Monday's actions."

Cheong said he expected Pyongyang to soon indicate the nuclear test was in some part planned by Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader's youngest son and frontrunner to take control of the secretive state.

"The outside world tends to underestimate Kim Jong-un at his young age," he said. "If Kim Jong-un played a decisive role in this nuclear test, it helps spread internally and externally a perception that he is a man of resolution."

Analysts also speculated about North Korea's choice to launch two tests on one day. "They know that Washington responds only when they brandish nuclear arms or missiles," said Lee of the CSIS.

"They also know the world is eager to know whether they are at a stage to combine nuclear power with missile know-how. So they might have done the tests together to create the impression that they are making headway to that goal."

But in doing so, others said, North Korea might have laid all of its weapons-related bargaining cards on the table.

"They played all their aces – they don't have much else," said Andrei Lankov, a political scientist at Kookmin University in Seoul who specializes in North Korea.

He said Pyongyang might also might "try to be inventive" and make a publicized attempt to sell nuclear materials to a developing nation to keep its enemies guessing.

Lankov said only one aspect of Pyongyang's move was unexpected. "I'm surprised they did this so fast," he said.

"I would have predicted that they would have waited a few months from their rocket launch to increase the tension, raise the pressure. "This was a message not only for the U.S. but for all other parties involved: don't forget us."

Didn't they just get done blowing up a nuke plant? Didn't they just agree to get rid of their nuke program?

I see this a test of Obama and yet another cry Kim Jong for attention. To me he's like a kid in kindergarten screaming "pay attention to me!... or else."

Wonder what happens when they pull Dr A Q Khan and sell their nuke tech to other countries, say Iran?

Baraka_Guru · 05-25-2009, 03:55 AM

I refuse to believe that anyone ever thought this problem went away. I sincerely doubt the Obama administration hasn't already spent time planning for this.

However, it will be interesting to see how things are handled this go around.

Charlatan · 05-25-2009, 04:46 AM

I've been following this all day and while it's disturbing that they did it, I wasn't that surprised.

Interestingly, most experts are suggesting that their nuclear threat is minimal. The main reason is that they haven't been able to make the bombs small enough to put on their missiles. That means they'd have to carry it in a plane and there is little chance that they'd be able to get through the extensive air defense of the US or Japan.

On the other hand, they have the ability to lob tonnes and tonnes of conventional warheads on Japan and South Korea. War heads also containing biochemical and/or radioactive payloads. This would wreak massive havoc not only on those two nations and their people but also the world economy.

Of course to do so would be suicide as the counterattack would wipe them from the map.

This was about two things:

1) trying to get a better position on the bargaining table
2) messing with the leadership of Korea which is currently reeling from the death of their previous Prime Minister. The current leadership's charges of corruption were deemed to be the cause of the former PMs suicide. This test will further shake the Korean's faith in their current leaders (or so the North would think)

Charlatan · 05-25-2009, 04:02 PM

Interesting that nobody else is commenting on this thread.

I would have thought that a nuclear detonation in North Korea would be a bigger deal in the US.

Willravel · 05-25-2009, 04:20 PM

I'm at the point now where I don't know what to say. Obviously we missed a big window by going after Iraq and Afghanistan instead of paying attention to North Korea, but that seems moot now. I'm at a loss when it comes to this.

We've tried to get them to stick to non-nuclear agreements but have been ignored. We obviously can't attack them, as we're tied up elsewhere (ugh). The sanctions don't stop them. Bribing them during the 90s clearly didn't work. I remember reading someone wants to give Japan and South Korea nuclear weapons... but that's just adding fuel to the fire. Positive reinforcement doesn't work. Negative reinforcement doesn't work. Kim Jong Il isn't going to stop.

I'm at a loss.

blahblah454 · 05-25-2009, 05:00 PM

I read a comment that someone made somewhere else that essentially said "Why is it that USA continues to invade Iraq for supposed WMD's when NK is already waving the WMD flag right in their face".

I tend to agree with that.

Willravel · 05-25-2009, 05:19 PM

I totally agree that our energies are better spent with North Korea, I just think Iraq has demonstrated that invasion probably isn't a good way to go.

It's even more nuts that we're going after Iran for maybe having nukes when North Korea actually has nukes.

IdeoFunk · 05-25-2009, 06:36 PM

Ditto. I find it particularly striking that over the last three years NK has been able to upgrade its nuclear capabilities from under 1 megatons to over 20 megatons if I'm not mistaken. To me that basically shows that NK never had any intentions of scrapping its nuclear program to begin with. Thus I fail to see how any negotiations with such an erratic and backwards regime could ever produce anything meaningful. North Korea seriously thinks it can negotiate better trade deals by pulling such asinine stunts? Screw that, hit them with more sanctions. At least if there's anything made obvious by this stunt, it's that it pissed off everybody, China and Russia included.

Baraka_Guru · 05-25-2009, 07:07 PM

What's really screwy about the whole thing is that North Korea is like China's troublesome cousin. They piss China off, but China's got too much stake in it, especially when you consider how much it would suck of North Korea became destabilized. That would definately not be in China's best interests in terms of territorial integrity. I don't think China wants anyone to do anything with North Korea beyond diplomacy and economic actions. Anything else, they'd want to have the ball in their own court.

MSD · 05-26-2009, 11:32 AM

If the seismograph readings I saw on the news this morning are correct, this looked a lot more like a massive load of conventional bombs than a nuke because of the rapid series of peaks on the graph. The goal is obvious - last time they made some promises about stopping the nuke program, we gave them billions of dollars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blahblah454

I read a comment that someone made somewhere else that essentially said "Why is it that USA continues to invade Iraq for supposed WMD's when NK is already waving the WMD flag right in their face".

I tend to agree with that.

In response to any invasion, military leaders will send the order to fire to tens of thousands of dug-in artillery positions, sending several million shells into the DMZ and South Korea in s few hours. Because of this, anyone taking military action has the choice of a nuclear first-strike or writing off roughly 30 million South Korean civilians in addition to all troops stationed in South Korea and the DMZ.

ratbastid · 05-26-2009, 11:42 AM

I'm of a similar attitude. Would have been nice if we'd gone in there instead of Iraq (though "going in" is obviously fraught with difficulties no matter where we'd "go in"). They're much scarier than any other regime on the planet right now, and I don't have any real idea what to do about that.

That said, I think that any real attack from NK--against China or Japan or SK, or anybody really--would be met with an international hammer-stroke the likes of which no nation has ever seen. North Korea has been enough of an antagonist, and isolationist enough, it HAS no real allies. Even Russia is keeping a polite distance. They seem friendly with Nicaragua, which could pose energy and economic troubles, but hardly poses much military resistance.

I think if we decided to, we could make NK a 51st state. We'd just have to know that we're signing onto that. Not nation-building. Conquering.

MSD · 05-26-2009, 11:51 AM

The people of NK are indoctrinated from birth to believe that the rest of the world wants nothing more than to slaughter them and that Dear Leader is protecting them. If we invaded, the Iraqi insurgency would look like a bunch of kids in comparison.

Baraka_Guru · 05-26-2009, 11:58 AM

The U.S. cannot simply invade NK. This is a complex multinational issue involving Russia, South Korea, and especially China.

Here are some backgrounder, opinion, and recent news articles outlining thus (relatively quick reads):

The China-North Korea Relationship - Council on Foreign Relations
VOA News - China Urges 'Coolheaded' Response to North Korea
Stuart Whatley: It's Not About North Korea
Q+A - How does China view North Korea's nuclear test? | World | Reuters

The_Jazz · 05-26-2009, 12:00 PM

Rat - the Chinese keep the North Koreans propped up. They have for decades.

I've said this here before and MSD has already posted something to the same effect: invading North Korea is a sucide mission. Americans have never had the taste for sending troops into a meat grinder without major provocation. Nuclear tests aren't anywhere close to reaching that status. So long as the North Koreans stay (mostly) on their side of the border, the US will not invade. To do so would mean the complete destruction of the Korean penninsula as well as the northern part of the Japanese archipelago given fallout patterns. There are no options beyond nuclear and haven't been since at least the 1980's. The DMZ is the most heavily fortified border in the world and any sort of invasion worthy of the title would quickly resemble France in 1915.

The North Koreans are actually friendly with a lot of folks, most of who aren't that friendly with us. The Pakistanis. The Venezualans. The Iranians. Just for starters....

MSD · 05-26-2009, 12:00 PM

More than anything, I think China doesn't want 20M+ refugees to become their problem in the world's eyes. And like I said, nobody can invade NK because 30 million civilian casualties is not an acceptable consequence to anyone.

Look at the density map, and look at where you see big cities on the SatMap. Anything within 50 miles of the border is gone, anything within 200 miles is vulnerable.
http://map.primorye.ru/raster/maps/a...a_pop_1973.jpg
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...911377&t=h&z=9

Baraka_Guru · 05-26-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSD

More than anything, I think China doesn't want 20M+ refugees to become their problem in the world's eyes. And like I said, nobody can invade NK because 30 million civilian casualties is not an acceptable consequence to anyone.

North Korea also acts as a buffer zone between China and S. Korea (which includes a sizable U.S. military presence).

FelixP · 05-26-2009, 01:17 PM

While I agree that invading NK would pose some serious PR and logistical issues, I disagree with Jazz's assesment that it would turn into a static war. Technology has changed drastically since WWI, and nearly as much since the Korean War. Remember Inchon? And doesn't anyone remember vertical envelopment? What about our vastly superior Navy and Air Force? I realize nukes pose a great threat to any amphib force (thanks Lemuel Shepherd), but I'd hate to see us wait until they can wipe out our entire Navy with two or three nukes. Thanks to our other obligations we can't do anything now, but I hope we don't wait until it's too late. One reason we didn't press on during the Korean War was because Truman and Eisenhower wanted to end the war as soon as possible, and neither one believed that the American public would tolerate a war against china only a half decade after the end of the largest war in human history. If NK started throwing nukes, or even high-payload conventional missiles, around at our allies, or god forbid us, I think all that would change.

The_Jazz · 05-26-2009, 01:38 PM

Felix, given the amount of time that the North Koreans have had to prepare for an invasion - and make no mistakes, their entire culture is centered around preparing for that invasion - there is no way that a "smart" war could pull the teeth of their army quickly enough to avoid a disaster (meaning South Korean casualties under a fairly arbitrary number, but probably 1M at it's highest). To take out all the armament on the DMZ, the amount of munitions necessary surpasses our ability to deliver it, which forces ground troops into action against artillery in hardened bunkers. Given that the North Koreans have a sophisticated air defense system, that would probably be an unsupported infantry invasion since the only plausible first objective of any invasion would be to neutralize the artillery that would be raining steel death down on Seoul the instant our troops put a toe across the border. Inchon is a great little history lesson in exactly how ballsy/foolhardy MacArthur was, but it's unrepeatable now given the amount of armament on the DMZ.

Nuclear weapons would only be useful in a retalitory fashion, and even then they're probably not enough to completely remove the threat since any fallout is necessarily going to obliterate South Korea and a large part of Japan. I sincerely doubt we'll ever see a first strike as a viable option simply given the geography of the region.

As an aside, if you think that Truman and Eisenhower were wrong in reigning in MacArthur, you need to read more about the man. He is, without a doubt, the closest we've ever gotten to someone in the military attempting to seize power from the President.

FelixP · 05-26-2009, 06:18 PM

I have no doubt that if we attacked first it would turn into a brutal slog, but there are many ways to win a war. Draw them out into the open, or let Delta and DEVGRU pave the way by knocking out AA and artillery. But I digress, we do agree that it would be a long, hard war.

I'm no fan of MacArthur (He gave all units involved in the Bataan Death March unit citations-except the Marines. He even gave Ned Almond command of X Corps.

dumbass overextending his forces

) I'm just saying that while MacArthur may not have been the man for the job due to his continued insubordination, Bunker Ridgeway was a competent officer.

Plan9 · 05-26-2009, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Interesting that nobody else is commenting on this thread.

I would have thought that a nuclear detonation in North Korea would be a bigger deal in the US.

Pfft, we've got two fronts on the illustrious Gee-WUT and Amerikuh is tired of ACUs and moon dust and rickety humvees right now.

I'm an ignoramus with world events, but: Skipping the typical useless UN diplomatic circle jerk, I figure public support for any type of military action right now would be next to nil even if there was actual tangible evidence of a need to engage in such. It's one thing to kick the asses of a bunch of toothless jihadists living in caves, another to attack a nuclear-armed nation with a standing army big enough to 1-for-1 cast the battle scenes from Lord of the Rings.

Previous administration's chickenhawks cried wolf far too many times and we're deaf to the new ones now... right or wrong.

roachboy · 05-27-2009, 04:39 AM

Quote:

North Korea restarts nuclear reactor and threatens to attack south

Seoul's participation in US-led ship searches 'equal to declaration of war'

The North Korea nuclear crisis deepened today after the regime reportedly restarted its main nuclear reactor and threatened to attack South Korea if it joined US-led inspections of vessels suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction.

In its most belligerent broadside yet in the standoff, North Korea warned that it would view as a declaration of war any participation by Seoul in the naval exercise, known as the Proliferation Security Initiative.

The state-controlled Korean Central News Agency quoted a North Korean army spokesman as saying: "Any hostile act against our peaceful vessels including search and seizure will be considered an unpardonable infringement on our sovereignty and we will immediately respond with a powerful military strike."

The statement added that the regime no longer considered itself bound by the armistice that ended the Korean war in 1953. The demarcation line separating north from south is among the most heavily fortified borders in the world.

The latest round of provocation comes amid reports that the north test-fired two more short-range missiles yesterday, bringing to five the number of rockets it has launched this week. A South Korean defence official said the north had fired two missiles on Monday, not three as reported in the media.

On Monday, North Korea enraged the US and irritated its allies China and Russia after conducting a nuclear weapons test, its second in three years.

The UN security council condemned the test and is reportedly considering adding to the sanctions agreed after Pyongyang detonated its first nuclear weapon in October 2006.

North-south tensions have been mounting since yesterday, when South Korea said it would assist the US in intercepting ships suspected of carrying missiles.

The north accused the US, a signatory of the armistice, of "dragging" the south into the naval inspections programme as part of its "hostile policy" against Pyongyang, adding that it could not guarantee the safety of South Korean and US naval vessels sailing near the disputed western Korean sea border.

The north appeared to have made good on a threat to restart its main nuclear reactor, which it had started to dismantle two years ago as part of a now ruined aid-for-disarmament deal reached at six-party talks in Beijing.

The regime walked away from the talks and threatened to resume plutonium production last month after the UN security council condemned its test-launch of a long-range ballistic missile on 5 April.

Chosun Ilbo, a South Korean newspaper, carried unconfirmed reports that US spy satellites had spotted steam rising from the north's main Yongbyon plant. The facility is capable of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods used in the production of weapons-grade plutonium.

There were no signs that it had actually started extracting a new batch of plutonium, a process experts said could take up to a year.

Fears that the north's dormant nuclear weapons programme has been restarted were heightened by reports of sporadic activity at the Soviet-era plant in recent weeks, including sightings of vehicles carrying chemicals through its front gates.

North Korea is thought to possess between five and seven nuclear weapons and enough fuel rods to produce another bomb by the end of the year.

In Seoul, a military spokesman said the north had test-fired another three short-range missiles yesterday from a base near the east coast city of Hamhung into the Sea of Japan.

The most recent launches have been interpreted as a warning to the US not to attempt to collect radiation data from its coastline after the Pentagon sent a surveillance aircraft close to North Korean airspace on Monday.

Although the regime is believed to be some way off perfecting the technology to attach nuclear devices to its missiles, the flurry of military activity this week has increased the pressure on the UN to act quickly.

The 15-member security council condemned the test after emergency talks on Monday and is expected to meet again soon to discuss a new resolution that could include fresh sanctions.

While the world considered its response, North Korean military officials celebrated Monday's test at a sports stadium in Pyongyang. The KNCA quoted Choe Thae-bok, a high ranking party official, as saying that the test was intended to protect the country against "the US imperialists' unabated threat to mount a pre-emptive nuclear attack and [place] sanctions and pressure on it".

There was more rhetoric from the North Korean party newspaper, the Rodong Sinmun, which said the country was "fully ready for battle" against the US and accused Barack Obama of "following in the footsteps of the previous Bush administration's reckless policy of militarily stifling North Korea".

North Korea restarts nuclear reactor and threatens to attack south | World news | guardian.co.uk

things have grown curiouser and curiouser overnight.
more later--am in transit

MSD · 05-27-2009, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FelixP

I have no doubt that if we attacked first it would turn into a brutal slog, but there are many ways to win a war. Draw them out into the open, or let Delta and DEVGRU pave the way by knocking out AA and artillery. But I digress, we do agree that it would be a long, hard war.

Korean People's Army - North Korea
1999 estimates are over 11,000 artillery pieces, with 8000 of them in 4000 underground locations within 90 miles of the DMZ, plus 2400 rocet launchers and 9000+ 60mm-160mm guns. This isn't a case where special forces can sneak in and take them out.

genuinegirly · 05-27-2009, 04:44 AM

Is anyone else really scared about this?

The_Jazz · 05-27-2009, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genuinegirly

Is anyone else really scared about this?

Not really. The North Koreans are a lot of things, but they aren't suicidal. They know that if they step over the line too much, the South Korean holocaust that follows will be justifiable. And the Chinese have been more and more uncomfortable propping up a totalitarian Communist regime in the past 10-15 years. The Chinese realize that there are some very real issues on the other side of the border and wonder if they're not going to be left holding the bag if the state implodes for some reason (which could happen if Kim Jong Il dies suddently).

Charlatan · 05-27-2009, 05:42 AM

Scared? Not really. If NK did anything they would get crushed.

roachboy · 05-27-2009, 05:47 AM

what's important to remember is that it is the south that's primarily invested in the status quo---their concern has been a flood of people moving from north to south (among other things). if you keep this in mind, you start to see it more as a high-stakes game of chicken than a door opening onto nuclear armageddeon. at the same time, speed of response is of the essence, and that from the united nations. the complaints are clear in here too: nk doesn't think that the obama administration is moving away from the bush policies fast enough; it wants apparently some kind of negociations that bypass south korea altogether (face-saving); and it's built weapons systems so it can get paid to dismantle them.

meanwhile, there is a moment of political confusion in south korea following on the suicide of the ex-pm a couple days ago.

the alarming developments in this include:
nk claiming that it does not see itself as bound by the 1954 armistice. the trick here is that it is the south that doesn't want to get into a military fight with the north---nk has nothing to loose by saying this nonsense then---what this translates into action-wise is anyone's guess.

china does not seem to me to be in any position to get dragged into a fight involving the united states in any way. nothing about their actions indicates they're willing to do it. maybe nk sees itself as becoming increasingly irrelevant...

the problem, obvious, is nukes.
great fucking idea, proliferation. great fucking idea developing nuclear weapons systems, setting them up so that having nukes made you part of the Big Penis Club in the great diplomatic game. but we're stuck with them, with this.

that's a partial take....

wwtsd · 05-27-2009, 06:08 AM

Scared no , keeping a close eye yes.

FelixP · 05-27-2009, 08:22 AM

Hmmm. I didn't realize they had that much artillery, or that they'd be smart enough to disperse it. The North Koreans don't need to want a war; only their delusional leader does. I must say, I'm disheartened by the overall tone of defeatism. Remember in 1989 when Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world? I understand there are more than a few differences between Iraq and NK, but I'm sure that we would eventually win, as long as we had enough forces not tied up in the middle east. We have a decidedly superior Navy and Air Force.

Well, enough about that. I'll try to stick to the point from now on. NK is a loose cannon, a powder keg waiting for someone dumb enough to light it, or dumb enough to ignore it. I just hope Obama doesn't think he's going to solve things through the UN.

MSD · 05-27-2009, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

what's important to remember is that it is the south that's primarily invested in the status quo---their concern has been a flood of people moving from north to south (among other things).

The North doesn't want anyone leaving, either. This is a view from the north, and the position of the guards says a lot about their foreign policy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FelixP

I understand there are more than a few differences between Iraq and NK, but I'm sure that we would eventually win, as long as we had enough forces not tied up in the middle east.

I'm also sure we would win, but at the cost of tens of millions of civilian lives and hundreds of thousands of military casualties.

roachboy · 05-27-2009, 11:25 AM

you'd think the Power of the Juche Ideal would make all that unnecessary, wouldn't you?

o yeah: people don't like famine. you can't eat the image of the Dear Leader.

nk is in a rather desperate situation and are making a bunch of noise in order to extort more money to not do what they're threatening to do. maybe the potential nukes are enough to allow the Dear Leader to imagine that a war is possible that won't in the end cost him too much. it's hard to say. what's clearer is that nk's created a situation that requires some pretty fast action.

Baraka_Guru · 05-27-2009, 11:27 AM

Yeah, let's hope this is just another fundraiser.

ASU2003 · 05-27-2009, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

North Korea also acts as a buffer zone between China and S. Korea (which includes a sizable U.S. military presence).

We wouldn't need to be there if North Korea wasn't a threat.

Then again, we owe so much money to China, and we fought the Korean War against China, we aren't in a good position anyway to tell North Korea that it can't be Communist. Or to attack them. This can't be won militarily, at least not now.

I hope we aren't still in Iraq 50 years from now...

05-25-2009, 03:55 AM	#2 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I refuse to believe that anyone ever thought this problem went away. I sincerely doubt the Obama administration hasn't already spent time planning for this. However, it will be interesting to see how things are handled this go around. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

05-25-2009, 04:46 AM	#3 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I've been following this all day and while it's disturbing that they did it, I wasn't that surprised. Interestingly, most experts are suggesting that their nuclear threat is minimal. The main reason is that they haven't been able to make the bombs small enough to put on their missiles. That means they'd have to carry it in a plane and there is little chance that they'd be able to get through the extensive air defense of the US or Japan. On the other hand, they have the ability to lob tonnes and tonnes of conventional warheads on Japan and South Korea. War heads also containing biochemical and/or radioactive payloads. This would wreak massive havoc not only on those two nations and their people but also the world economy. Of course to do so would be suicide as the counterattack would wipe them from the map. This was about two things: 1) trying to get a better position on the bargaining table 2) messing with the leadership of Korea which is currently reeling from the death of their previous Prime Minister. The current leadership's charges of corruption were deemed to be the cause of the former PMs suicide. This test will further shake the Korean's faith in their current leaders (or so the North would think) __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

05-25-2009, 04:02 PM	#4 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Interesting that nobody else is commenting on this thread. I would have thought that a nuclear detonation in North Korea would be a bigger deal in the US. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

05-25-2009, 07:07 PM	#9 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	What's really screwy about the whole thing is that North Korea is like China's troublesome cousin. They piss China off, but China's got too much stake in it, especially when you consider how much it would suck of North Korea became destabilized. That would definately not be in China's best interests in terms of territorial integrity. I don't think China wants anyone to do anything with North Korea beyond diplomacy and economic actions. Anything else, they'd want to have the ball in their own court. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

05-26-2009, 11:58 AM	#13 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	The U.S. cannot simply invade NK. This is a complex multinational issue involving Russia, South Korea, and especially China. Here are some backgrounder, opinion, and recent news articles outlining thus (relatively quick reads): The China-North Korea Relationship - Council on Foreign Relations VOA News - China Urges 'Coolheaded' Response to North Korea Stuart Whatley: It's Not About North Korea Q+A - How does China view North Korea's nuclear test? \| World \| Reuters __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

05-25-2009, 04:20 PM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm at the point now where I don't know what to say. Obviously we missed a big window by going after Iraq and Afghanistan instead of paying attention to North Korea, but that seems moot now. I'm at a loss when it comes to this. We've tried to get them to stick to non-nuclear agreements but have been ignored. We obviously can't attack them, as we're tied up elsewhere (ugh). The sanctions don't stop them. Bribing them during the 90s clearly didn't work. I remember reading someone wants to give Japan and South Korea nuclear weapons... but that's just adding fuel to the fire. Positive reinforcement doesn't work. Negative reinforcement doesn't work. Kim Jong Il isn't going to stop. I'm at a loss.

05-25-2009, 05:00 PM	#6 (permalink)
blahblah454 Let's put a smile on that face Location: On the road...	I read a comment that someone made somewhere else that essentially said "Why is it that USA continues to invade Iraq for supposed WMD's when NK is already waving the WMD flag right in their face". I tend to agree with that.

05-25-2009, 05:19 PM	#7 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I totally agree that our energies are better spent with North Korea, I just think Iraq has demonstrated that invasion probably isn't a good way to go. It's even more nuts that we're going after Iran for maybe having nukes when North Korea actually has nukes.

05-25-2009, 06:36 PM	#8 (permalink)
IdeoFunk Crazy Location: to	Ditto. I find it particularly striking that over the last three years NK has been able to upgrade its nuclear capabilities from under 1 megatons to over 20 megatons if I'm not mistaken. To me that basically shows that NK never had any intentions of scrapping its nuclear program to begin with. Thus I fail to see how any negotiations with such an erratic and backwards regime could ever produce anything meaningful. North Korea seriously thinks it can negotiate better trade deals by pulling such asinine stunts? Screw that, hit them with more sanctions. At least if there's anything made obvious by this stunt, it's that it pissed off everybody, China and Russia included.

05-26-2009, 11:42 AM	#11 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I'm of a similar attitude. Would have been nice if we'd gone in there instead of Iraq (though "going in" is obviously fraught with difficulties no matter where we'd "go in"). They're much scarier than any other regime on the planet right now, and I don't have any real idea what to do about that. That said, I think that any real attack from NK--against China or Japan or SK, or anybody really--would be met with an international hammer-stroke the likes of which no nation has ever seen. North Korea has been enough of an antagonist, and isolationist enough, it HAS no real allies. Even Russia is keeping a polite distance. They seem friendly with Nicaragua, which could pose energy and economic troubles, but hardly poses much military resistance. I think if we decided to, we could make NK a 51st state. We'd just have to know that we're signing onto that. Not nation-building. Conquering.

05-26-2009, 11:51 AM	#12 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	The people of NK are indoctrinated from birth to believe that the rest of the world wants nothing more than to slaughter them and that Dear Leader is protecting them. If we invaded, the Iraqi insurgency would look like a bunch of kids in comparison.

05-26-2009, 12:00 PM	#14 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Rat - the Chinese keep the North Koreans propped up. They have for decades. I've said this here before and MSD has already posted something to the same effect: invading North Korea is a sucide mission. Americans have never had the taste for sending troops into a meat grinder without major provocation. Nuclear tests aren't anywhere close to reaching that status. So long as the North Koreans stay (mostly) on their side of the border, the US will not invade. To do so would mean the complete destruction of the Korean penninsula as well as the northern part of the Japanese archipelago given fallout patterns. There are no options beyond nuclear and haven't been since at least the 1980's. The DMZ is the most heavily fortified border in the world and any sort of invasion worthy of the title would quickly resemble France in 1915. The North Koreans are actually friendly with a lot of folks, most of who aren't that friendly with us. The Pakistanis. The Venezualans. The Iranians. Just for starters.... __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-26-2009, 12:00 PM	#15 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	More than anything, I think China doesn't want 20M+ refugees to become their problem in the world's eyes. And like I said, nobody can invade NK because 30 million civilian casualties is not an acceptable consequence to anyone. Look at the density map, and look at where you see big cities on the SatMap. Anything within 50 miles of the border is gone, anything within 200 miles is vulnerable. http://map.primorye.ru/raster/maps/a...a_pop_1973.jpg http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...911377&t=h&z=9 Last edited by MSD; 05-26-2009 at 12:05 PM..

05-26-2009, 01:17 PM	#17 (permalink)
FelixP Insane Location: I'm up they see me I'm down.	While I agree that invading NK would pose some serious PR and logistical issues, I disagree with Jazz's assesment that it would turn into a static war. Technology has changed drastically since WWI, and nearly as much since the Korean War. Remember Inchon? And doesn't anyone remember vertical envelopment? What about our vastly superior Navy and Air Force? I realize nukes pose a great threat to any amphib force (thanks Lemuel Shepherd), but I'd hate to see us wait until they can wipe out our entire Navy with two or three nukes. Thanks to our other obligations we can't do anything now, but I hope we don't wait until it's too late. One reason we didn't press on during the Korean War was because Truman and Eisenhower wanted to end the war as soon as possible, and neither one believed that the American public would tolerate a war against china only a half decade after the end of the largest war in human history. If NK started throwing nukes, or even high-payload conventional missiles, around at our allies, or god forbid us, I think all that would change. __________________ Free will lies not in the ability to craft your own fate, but in not knowing what your fate is. --Me "I have just returned from visting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world." --Douglas MacArthur

05-26-2009, 01:38 PM	#18 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Felix, given the amount of time that the North Koreans have had to prepare for an invasion - and make no mistakes, their entire culture is centered around preparing for that invasion - there is no way that a "smart" war could pull the teeth of their army quickly enough to avoid a disaster (meaning South Korean casualties under a fairly arbitrary number, but probably 1M at it's highest). To take out all the armament on the DMZ, the amount of munitions necessary surpasses our ability to deliver it, which forces ground troops into action against artillery in hardened bunkers. Given that the North Koreans have a sophisticated air defense system, that would probably be an unsupported infantry invasion since the only plausible first objective of any invasion would be to neutralize the artillery that would be raining steel death down on Seoul the instant our troops put a toe across the border. Inchon is a great little history lesson in exactly how ballsy/foolhardy MacArthur was, but it's unrepeatable now given the amount of armament on the DMZ. Nuclear weapons would only be useful in a retalitory fashion, and even then they're probably not enough to completely remove the threat since any fallout is necessarily going to obliterate South Korea and a large part of Japan. I sincerely doubt we'll ever see a first strike as a viable option simply given the geography of the region. As an aside, if you think that Truman and Eisenhower were wrong in reigning in MacArthur, you need to read more about the man. He is, without a doubt, the closest we've ever gotten to someone in the military attempting to seize power from the President. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-26-2009, 06:18 PM	#19 (permalink)
FelixP Insane Location: I'm up they see me I'm down.	I have no doubt that if we attacked first it would turn into a brutal slog, but there are many ways to win a war. Draw them out into the open, or let Delta and DEVGRU pave the way by knocking out AA and artillery. But I digress, we do agree that it would be a long, hard war. I'm no fan of MacArthur (He gave all units involved in the Bataan Death March unit citations-except the Marines. He even gave Ned Almond command of X Corps. dumbass overextending his forces) I'm just saying that while MacArthur may not have been the man for the job due to his continued insubordination, Bunker Ridgeway was a competent officer. __________________ Free will lies not in the ability to craft your own fate, but in not knowing what your fate is. --Me "I have just returned from visting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world." --Douglas MacArthur

05-27-2009, 04:44 AM	#23 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	Is anyone else really scared about this? __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

05-27-2009, 05:42 AM	#25 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Scared? Not really. If NK did anything they would get crushed. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

05-27-2009, 05:47 AM	#26 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what's important to remember is that it is the south that's primarily invested in the status quo---their concern has been a flood of people moving from north to south (among other things). if you keep this in mind, you start to see it more as a high-stakes game of chicken than a door opening onto nuclear armageddeon. at the same time, speed of response is of the essence, and that from the united nations. the complaints are clear in here too: nk doesn't think that the obama administration is moving away from the bush policies fast enough; it wants apparently some kind of negociations that bypass south korea altogether (face-saving); and it's built weapons systems so it can get paid to dismantle them. meanwhile, there is a moment of political confusion in south korea following on the suicide of the ex-pm a couple days ago. the alarming developments in this include: nk claiming that it does not see itself as bound by the 1954 armistice. the trick here is that it is the south that doesn't want to get into a military fight with the north---nk has nothing to loose by saying this nonsense then---what this translates into action-wise is anyone's guess. china does not seem to me to be in any position to get dragged into a fight involving the united states in any way. nothing about their actions indicates they're willing to do it. maybe nk sees itself as becoming increasingly irrelevant... the problem, obvious, is nukes. great fucking idea, proliferation. great fucking idea developing nuclear weapons systems, setting them up so that having nukes made you part of the Big Penis Club in the great diplomatic game. but we're stuck with them, with this. that's a partial take.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-27-2009, 06:08 AM	#27 (permalink)
wwtsd Upright	Scared no , keeping a close eye yes.

05-27-2009, 08:22 AM	#28 (permalink)
FelixP Insane Location: I'm up they see me I'm down.	Hmmm. I didn't realize they had that much artillery, or that they'd be smart enough to disperse it. The North Koreans don't need to want a war; only their delusional leader does. I must say, I'm disheartened by the overall tone of defeatism. Remember in 1989 when Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world? I understand there are more than a few differences between Iraq and NK, but I'm sure that we would eventually win, as long as we had enough forces not tied up in the middle east. We have a decidedly superior Navy and Air Force. Well, enough about that. I'll try to stick to the point from now on. NK is a loose cannon, a powder keg waiting for someone dumb enough to light it, or dumb enough to ignore it. I just hope Obama doesn't think he's going to solve things through the UN. __________________ Free will lies not in the ability to craft your own fate, but in not knowing what your fate is. --Me "I have just returned from visting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world." --Douglas MacArthur

05-27-2009, 11:25 AM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	you'd think the Power of the Juche Ideal would make all that unnecessary, wouldn't you? o yeah: people don't like famine. you can't eat the image of the Dear Leader. nk is in a rather desperate situation and are making a bunch of noise in order to extort more money to not do what they're threatening to do. maybe the potential nukes are enough to allow the Dear Leader to imagine that a war is possible that won't in the end cost him too much. it's hard to say. what's clearer is that nk's created a situation that requires some pretty fast action. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-27-2009, 11:27 AM	#31 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Yeah, let's hope this is just another fundraiser. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot